Menu

The never ending quest for a proper home for the Oakland Athletics.

Raiders not selling Mt. Davis in 2013

This week the Raiders released a seating map for their 2013 season. The startling revelation from this release is that the Mount Davis upper deck seats have been completely eliminated, as have the outer sections of the original third deck.

Sections for sale do not include the outer 4 sections of the original upper deck or the newer Mt. Davis sections

A look at 2012 attendance sheds some light on what the Raiders’ motivation may be. While the first two home games were considered sellouts (for blackout purposes, not complete sellouts), attendance dropped off quickly as an unappealing group of non-division opponents accompanied a six-game slide into irrelevance. Whatever goodwill was earned during the “Oakland Loves Its Sports Teams” rally was squandered by Thanksgiving, with many fans already looking forward to 2013 when the team was forgotten locally as the 49ers continued their surge into the playoffs.

2012 Raiders Home Attendance

The stated football capacity of the Coliseum 63,132 64,200according to the Raiders, already the second (or fifth) smallest stadium in the NFL. If Mt. Davis and the ends of the original upper deck are removed, the new capacity should will be 51,000 53,250, with Mt. Davis accounting for some 10,000 seats by itself. While this would increase the team’s chances of hitting every game’s blackout target, if the NFL approves this change it’s tantamount to admitting that those seats are unsellable, at least while the team remains mediocre. CSN’s Paul Gutierrez notes that there was only one home blackout in 2012 because of the Raiders’ use of the 85% rule, so blackouts may not the issue. Instead, the Raiders may be eschewing the 85% plan altogether, because it somewhat disincentivizes sales above the 85% mark of regular, non-club seats. Per the CBA, revenue from marginal sales above the 85% mark had to be split evenly between the Raiders and the visiting team. If the Raiders presell a ton of the best seats to Raider fans and not invading fans, they might be able to boost the home crowd feel even as fewer seats are available. That was certainly the case for the A’s at the end of the 2012 season and in the postseason.

HNTB, the firm that architected the Coliseum renovation in 1995, was commissioned by the Chargers to examine deficiencies at Qualcomm Stadium compared to other newer stadia. Interestingly, the study included the Coliseum, even though the Coliseum is less than half new. Included in the study was a measurement of the highest, farthest seat at the 50-yard line for each stadium. That seat on Mt. Davis is 336 feet from the 50, the farthest of the 10 venues in the comparison. While the same seat on the opposite side of the field was not measured, given what is known about the bowl that seat is probably 100 feet closer.

If there’s a winner in this, it’s the LA firm that Lew Wolff contracts to remove and replace the A’s tarps every season. Looks like they’ll be getting a new customer right quick. Fans also get very inexpensive seats in the process. Wolff himself is probably feeling rather victorious today. Losers? 11th hour or walkup ticket buyers. There will be a much smaller inventory for the secondary market, which in recent years had tickets on Mt. Davis for less than $10 on StubHub.

Raider fan, what do you think about this? Good/bad move? An admission that the team will be terrible? Sound off below.

109 thoughts on “Raiders not selling Mt. Davis in 2013”

Well now. Will the Raiders and Davis receive as much hate spewed toward them as the A’s ownership because of this development? I have to think that the most hardcore of the anti-Wolff folks are Raiders fans, since a lot of their feelings have to do with civic pride.

Well, obviously, this is being done to suppress attendance, no? Isn’t that Wolff is always accused of with the tarps? Take off the the tarps Lew I mean Mark! Gotta wonder how long the NFL is going to stay in Oakland, with an inability to sell out a small (63,132 seats) stadium, weak revenues compared to the rest of the league and no public contribution planned for a new stadium that would cost $1 billion. Not to mention a baseball infield sitting on the field for the first month of play.

Ok, I figure this will leak eventually anyway, but the reason they are not selling the top of Mt. Davis is because Al wanted his body to be buried not in or underneath the structure, as it would be in a mausoleum, but at the pinnacle of the object that carries his name so he can remain above everyone and look down from on high.

you do wonder if the raiders ever plan on moving in with the niners into the santa clara stadium whether they could actually sell the place out since the capacity of the new niners stadium is over 68k so they’d have to sell 58k tickets to reach the new 85% blackout rule now which mean looking at 2012 the raiders would’ve sold out just two games.

Not a fan of this move. They’re supposedly going to explain it today at some point. I’ll hold my judgment until than.
OT, but why are Raider fans alway referred to as “Raider fan?” It’s always by non Raider fans and it’s really irritating. I don’t get the significance.

Kind of surprising, as Mount Davis was always almost sold out last year (it was the end zone upper deck sections that weren’t). I get that they’re trying to promote season tickets, but what good are they if you have to sell $61 seats (316-318) for $25 as a result.

I don’t see this being as unpopular (if unpopular at all) because they’re reducing the prices on the whole rest of the upper deck. So they’re augmenting the cheap supply to make up for a lack of demand. The A’s just slashed the cheap supply.

I miss the Jim Rome show …but First take and around the horn is good. As for Oakland, seems like Quan Blackwell I think they should raise the white flag, they have to pay cops and teachers before a new stadium if ever… The Raiders need new ownership and a city.

Wow. This is quite shocking news but at the same time, not really surprising when one thinks about it. With a history of local blackouts and struggling ticket sales, and the team seemingly going nowhere in terms of on-field success, it was bound to happen eventually. I agree with LS, I wonder if the Raiders will receive the same level of outrage and fan protest that the A’s and Lew Wolff has had to put up with for the last 6-7 years. The response from the Oakland boosters will be telling…

If anything, what a slap in the face this has to be to everyone, isn’t it? It’s like some sort of messed up, tragic cosmic irony: The Raiders come back, get the city to bend over backwards for them to build Mt. Davis, ruining the Coliseum for the A’s and poisoning the political well in the process. The Raiders fail to deliver the returns that were promised from that investment, and the city is left hanging dry to foot the bill. And now the Raiders don’t even want to USE Mt. Davis anymore… unbelievable.

forget about the seats, how many of the luxury boxes in mt davis aren’t being used over the past decade?

the idea thrown out there a couple months back was whether or not you can renovate those boxes turning every two luxury box into one bigger one especially if the raiders and the city decide to renovate the coliseum even further.

This whole story since 1992 would make a WAY more interesting movie than MONEYBALL… kind of like “Chinatown” but with stadiums instead of water rights. I think it’s all been a racket from the start… those tens of millions of dollars that Al Davis fleeced out of the City of Oakland to build the travesty called Mt. Davis sure say so — especially now, don’t they? I bet Mark Davis will now move them away again, with those inherited millions in his pocket.

I’m sure Lew Wolff’s reaction will be to run another campaign against raising the minimum wage.

I was talking to fellow Raiders fans today. Right now, we’re basically an expansion franchise, paying for all those final years of Al Davis (RIP).
It’s going to be lean for a few years, hence attendance is definitely going to suck, hence this move. I’m sure the fanbase still exists to fill a venue +63,000. Just need a winner on the field.

So wait, is it just for season tickets that they’re not selling them or is it overall and they’re going to tarp them off and lower capacity (maybe to avert ever present blackouts in light of their neighbors now being an NFL powerhouse)?

Why don’t they just let people in to Raiders games for nothing or almost nothing? $10 to see the Raiders. How about it? That’ll fill the place up. Remember how somebody on this board suggested the A’s could boost attendance by charging minor league ticket prices for Major League Baseball (even though A’s prices already are rock-bottom)?

So reading closer I’m just flabberghasted. They’re actually going to cease selling tickets in those sections altogether. And tarp them off like the A’s do? Then WHY THE FUCK DID THEY BUILD IT AND RUIN OUR STADIUM!!!!???!!!

As an anti-Wolff Oakland booster, please allow me to go on the record as not giving a shit about the Raiders because I don’t give a shit about the Raiders. JL nicely summed up the slap in the face above

Dan: I don’t think Al Davis ever did any marketing studies to assess what the demand would be for premium and luxury suite seating at the Coliseum before he brought the team back. He just got disgusted with LA, Oakland offered to build 100+ luxury boxes and Al Davis took the bait.

Pjk, I know that. But frankly this just pisses me off even more than the fact the stupid thing exists in the first place. The fact the Raiders aren’t using it and can’t justify its existence just drives home how stupid both Mt. Davis and the people that built it really are. Which shouldn’t shock me, Oakland pols have been some of the biggest morons since this whole debacle began. This just drives home how stupid and how long they’ve been retarded (since at least 1994). Oakland really does deserve to lose the A’s. They’ve treated the A’s like shit for 2 decades and for no good reason apparently.

had the raiders not come back and the coliseum the a’s still would need a new stadium no matter what eventually. this talk about dismanting mt davis and the a’s could stay at the coliseum for decades to come imo isn’t even realistic.

No, it’s not realistic. We’d still be left with an industrial-area parking lot stadium with seats that are too far from the action, in a misshapen round stadium. And we can bet it would cost many millions of dollars to undo the Mount Davis improvements. Who wants to pay for it? The A’s? No. The city? No.

Wow if this is true than this is another slap in the face and huge “middle finger” to Oakland and Raider Nation. I just find it funny that teams say they can’t sell out when they are the ones at fault for putting crap out onto the field. Can we say LA/Santa Clara Raiders in the next 5-10 years.

Mike, A’s put a great product on the field this year and they didn’t sell much more than the year before. Quality has never sold in Oakland unless it was Yankee dominant style like we were for 5 brief years at the end of the 80’s (which was financially unsustainable I’d add). Raiders have never done all that great suite or seat wise in Oakland either, and it’s not like they’ve been bad the entire time.

ML what’s your take on this? I mean we haven’t seen an NFL team with such a pitifully small capacity in over a decade when the donut clones started being demolished. And with little hope of a new Raiders stadium in Oakland and the Raiders seeming dead set against Santa Clara… is LA the ultimate destination here?

“The Raiders need new ownership” – Is this the only answer Oakland pundits have for every stadium issue that comes up? The A’s need a new stadium to sustain the franchise….”need a new ownership”. The W’s want to move to a more prestigious venue….”need a new ownership”. The Raiders are broadcasting they can’t sell tickets (in a structure that asked for specifically)….”need a new ownership”. /facepalm

In light of all the “controversy” we saw with the A’s last October and just out of curiosity, what’s the NFL’s stance on tarps, particularly in the playoffs? (Yes, a Raiders playoff run next year is a far-off proposition, but still a possibility nonetheless…)

@eb – Wait a sec. The Raiders are buying businesses in the area? I’ve seen no record of this. By all accounts it’s the Coliseum Authority and the City of Oakland that are buying land. If the Raiders are in fact buying land in the area, it would show a level of commitment that they haven’t shown yet at any site, anywhere throughout their entire existence.

@ML – Thank you for the guesstimate!
@everyone else to replied – Thank you as well for your replies and yes, it was easy to see where I was going with my query. As an A’s fan who resides in Davis and does not drive, it is a quicker and cheaper train trip for me to attend an A’s game if the team were in Oakland rather than San Jose. I was wondering if tearing down Mt. Davis and making minor upgrades to the Coliseum might be one way the city of Oakland could look at in order to keep the A’s in town. Obviously, the overwhelming opinion here is “no” and I’m quite okay with that. ML’s guesstimate obviously says that it would be cheaper overall to build a new stadium than to renovate. While I prefer the A’s remain in Oakland, I really don’t care where the A’s call home as long as it is within reasonable distance for me to attend a game every now and again without having to consult a travel website. Yes, Sacramento would be the ideal place for me to attend A’s games, but I have a better chance at winning the California state lottery than the A’s moving to Sac.

Marine Layer, I work in heavy construction specifically with costs and have done a demolition job. Noway that Mount Davis comes down for 10mill. A couple factors are the height would require large specialized equipment. Also, the new concrete strength with reinforcement for all seismic standards is really hard to remove. When you see old structures come down it looks easy, but those structures are old and not built to today’s standards. You also can’t blast because you only want to remove that portion. I would have to do an analysis, but I could see easy 20mil. It’s all poured concrete, not a steel shell like the miners New stadium.

“We love that site. Our hope, our desire is a new stadium on that site. And we have stated that publicly for years. I think it’s fair to note that of all the sports tenants on the complex, we are the one sports tenant that keeps saying, We want to stay.”

eb: The Raiders can love that site all they want. But where does the $1 billion come from to pay for the stadium? Have the Raiders ever in their existence contributed any money at all toward stadium construction? Not that I can recall. And Oakland’s financial situation is no big secret.

pjk “We do understand that it is a different day and age now,” she said, “and anything that’s done is going to have to be a true public/private partnership and we are proceeding in that manner.” I don’t know. We’ll see if this new Raider regime is any different and if there are any ideas on Oakland’s behalf.

The Raiders are sending a message to Oakland officials that the status quo at the Coliseum is unacceptable. The Raiders, with the reduced Coliseum capacity, are also hinting that a new stadium venue for their team is on the horizon. In the short-term, I believe the Raiders will be trying out the sharing of the new Santa Clara Stadium. At this uncertain point regarding the Raiders future in Oakland, they have little choice but to give Santa Clara a chance, before the LA option ever comes into play.

Oakland and the Raiders might as well go 50/50… Half public and half private…seems like the only way. And I will say this one more time….Mark Davis/Amy Trask…even Carol Davis THEY ARE NOT INTRESTED IN SANTA CLARA.. its either Oakland, Dublin (YES I said it) or the L.A return were Magic Johnson is lurking…sorry San Jose…no Raiders for you…also I’m not mad about the closed out seats , ill be in the black hole which is a better experience anyway

posted it a few times here but the raiders and the city of oakland looking back should’ve just built a seperate new stadium in the coliseum parking lot back when they returned in the mid 90s. what did it cost to build mt davis and do the renovations at the coliseum in the mid 90s? 200 million in 1995 “dollars” from what i’ve read. look at nfl stadium built around the same time period.

carolina-opened in 96 cost 248 million
tampa bay-opened in 98 cost 170 million
washington-opened in 97 cost 250 million
baltimore- openedin in 98 cost 220 million

now building a similar stadium in the bay area likely would cost you more than building it in most other parts of the country but had this taken place where instead of creating a sports venue that was pretty much mediocre for two teams, could’ve built a state of the art football stadium that probably would be still more than adequate at this time and although the a’s still likely would’ve needed and wanted a new baseball park, spending the last 15+ years in a pre mt davis coliseum would’ve been a much more enjoyable experience.

Wow looking at the numbers you are right, a sepeprate stadium would have been better for Oakland and Al Davis return… sigh.. the problem with Oakland and other mayors around the country, is that simply Oakland pols never been big on sports… same goes for San Francisco.. maybe we are too liberal or whatever u want to call it, to look at billionares and say.. why you want public money.. i think mayor quan is realizing slowly that, that is how the Big Boyz play, and she alone has to decide wheter Oakland is big enough to support one more big deal for sports.. or let all 3 go.. forever… i never seen anything like this…
i mean the mayor in Baltlimore Stephanie Rawlings Blake is pro sports so there is never an issue with Baltimore O’s or the Baltimore Ravens (congrads beating 49ers), Oakland needs a mayor and a city staff that favors sports but can also take care of the city.

The only thing i agree with Quan, Blackwell and others about the Raider stadium is the dome/retractable roof… cant blame Oakland for that because football is only from august-feb (if good), the only way Oakland can make that money back is using that stadium 24/7 with any kind of event… I recommend maybe they can host Football and basketball in a superdome type… again its one of the few ways the city can get money from other events as well as Oakland getting a new stadium.. also lets admit.. some days are just too cold in the bay area, i think it would help the Raiders better with controled weather.

“.Mark Davis/Amy Trask…even Carol Davis THEY ARE NOT INTRESTED IN SANTA CLARA.”

berry, Why not! At this point, what’s there to lose…By signing a short-term five year lease at the new Santa Clara stadium, the Raiders will allow more time to keep their options open to hopefully remain in the Bay Area. If there is any future hope of the Raiders playing in Oakland or anywhere else in the East Bay, a short-term lease at Santa Clara could allow more time and provide more leverage to possibly get something done. Also, If anything else, the sharing of the Santa Clara stadium with the 49ers may work out very well. Unless it’s tested, we won’t know. There is always LA, but the first priority is for the Raiders to keep all options open to staying in the Bay Area. I believe Mark Davis, Amy Trask, and the entire Raiders ownership know that too.

First of all i allready said, that if the Raiders trust that Oakland will do their part on funding the new stadium but might need some more time (sigh), then a short term lease in Santa Clara… is well… fine.. still i think with L.A gaining steam, would the Raiders take a L.A market they are familiar with or the south bay??? cmon man.

IIpec, that assumes they want to stay in the Bay Area long term. The fact they still haven’t signed a lease extension on the Coliseum is pretty worrisome in that regard. And LA is still waiting for a team but won’t stay open forever as the Rams in particular may be poised to make a move in the next year or two if the city of St. Louis doesn’t cough up half a billion dollars or so.

Right Dan.. in fact St. louis is Oakland in 1995… just suck it up and build a new stadium because the renovations will become a yawn in 8 years.. so if St. Louis WANTS the rams.. then they will have to get them a new stadium.. if not hold your peace and let the team move to L.A.. it would be nobody but St. Louis fault.. same for Oakland if thye dont get their act together….

Also to my cousin Mark in Miami… dude south florida better pay for those renovations at Sun Life!!!.. dude Stephen Ross is fronting most the bill, dont care that you guys got suckered by the Marlins.. the Dolphins need some renovations, because South beach in feb is better then new orleans in feb… again mayors think about Superbowl!!!

Berry: You think Oakland is going to pony up $500 mill for a football stadium used 10 days a year when they’re laying off police officers? I kind of doubt it. Put that one up to the voters and watch it get squashed…

The NFL seems to prefer LA to be a two team market. If the Raiders decide to move to LA, they know they will likely be sharing a stadium with some other NFL team. At this point, it doesn’t matter if the Raiders are the first or second team moving to LA. If Santa Clara ultimately is the only option for the Raiders in the Bay Area, they may have to decide on whether they want to share a stadium in the Bay Area or in LA. The Raiders once before Shared the LA market with the Rams, and it didn’t work out. None of us are privy to Mark Davis’ thinking on this question. Eventually, we may find out that answer.

St. Louis passed an initiative that any new stadium is subject to a public vote, while a “renovation” is not. And I’m not seeing how a $700 mil bill for a new stadium could have the public support. So, if the powers that be want to keep their team, tearing down all but one part of a wall and then renovating around that wall might be the best way to go (a little birdie told me that some people do that with home renovations for tax purposes).

And would going to Santa Clara really draw more people to the Raider games, or get them to pay higher prices for tickets? Not really (maybe slightly higher prices for better views). So you can play in SC and pay whatever rent the Whiners want to charge and gross a little more money, or stay at the Coliseum rent-free and gross a little less. Doesn’t sound like the gross difference is likely to make up the rent costs.

Intresting point, on how.much a ticket for a Raider game in Santa clara would be vs. A coliseum ticket…I also wonder what kind of rent would the 49ers ask the Raiders to pay whether temporary or full time to play there. ML????

@berry – I figure that as with many operator/tenant relationships, the 49ers are offering nominal rent and allowing the Raiders to collect all ticket revenue, but the 49ers want all parking/concessions revenue. If I’m Amy Trask, I don’t see how there’s an advantage to that vs. the Coliseum. At the same time, the Raiders want more revenue streams at the Coliseum coming to them, but the A’s are in the way of that. They’re in between a rock and a hard place.

I see Kaplan/Quan pie in the sky thinking is alive and well here. The city does not have a spare $100 million to spend on a roof that would deliver probably 2 extra events a year. Of course, as mentioned before, the city does not have $500 million to spend on a new NFL stadium to begin with, so this whole discussion is probably moot.

@Tim – Not to mention that there’s $100 million in sunk debt at Mt. Davis. That alone negates any claims of free or cheap land at the Coliseum since it eventually has to be factored into the total project cost.

@Berry I don’t get how you are so strong about Raiders and Amy Trask wanting nothing to do with Santa Clara. When on the interview lined by EB. She is clearly leaving that option open.

“”We did have discussions with the 49ers,” she said. “We have not had any discussions recently. We have not closed the door on that opportunity. But our focus is on this site.””

Yes she is trying for Oakland, but this appears Santa Clara is very clearly still an option for them.

….
Greg papa just put the whole tarped off Raider deal in the best perspective. Wondering why they are reducing the possible max attendance to under the current average or even any of last years lows (besides Cleveland game)
He said it’s obvious Mark Davis got fed up with having to buy up the tickets himself to get the games on TV. That the posted attendance were no where near the actual tickets sold if you take out how much the Raiders were buying themselves.

It does not matter where they play. Until they start putting a quality product on the field no one is going to watch them play. Who wants to see a bad team year in and year out and is so badly mismanaged that they make the Cowboys look like a well run franchise. Even if they moved (to Santa Clara or back to LA) and the novelty of the team wears off on the locals the Raiders will be back in the same boat of not being able to sell tickets.

re” He said it’s obvious Mark Davis got fed up with having to buy up the tickets himself to get the games on TV.

…so will the media and Oakland give Davis a pass on the tarps because, after all, he’s just trying to get the games on TV, while continuing to skewer Wolff because the tarps are part of his sinister plan to suppress attendance? We’ll all understand the difference, right?

“…so will the media and Oakland give Davis a pass on the tarps because, after all, he’s just trying to get the games on TV, while continuing to skewer Wolff because the tarps are part of his sinister plan to suppress attendance? We’ll all understand the difference, right?”

Wolff is also actively trying to move the team to another city while Davis isn’t. Kind of a big difference.

I believe Oakland pols are more pragmatic than they appear. Hopefully, most realize they will have to choose a team to try and retain and we appear to be getting closer to the decision point. All signs point to them favoring the Raiders, based on past trends and the team’s stated desire to remain in Oakland. What I wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall during the A’s lease negotiations.
Let’s move forward already because this treading water is killing me!

RM,
There’s going to be parking at the SC stadium? Where?
I’m in the camp of the Raiders getting something done at the Coliseum. But if that doesn’t happen, is there still a chance the Niners SC stadium could become equal with both teams? I.e. the Raidrs not merely a tenant and both teams keeping ALL their revenues from game days. Also splitting revenues from other events.
Perhaps the NFL would provide the SC stadium with the Raiders stadium loan to help out with the Niners debt service (?). Just thinking outside the box with this one.

Would the NFL allow such a permanent unequal relationship (Raiders paying Niners rent and Niners keeping parking/concession and the like)? I know it was Giants Stadium for years, but did the Giants keep concessions and parking revenue and whatnot, or was it a more equal sharing overall?

@ Tim – Have the A’s abandoned Oakland before? Have the A’s hindered the city with $100M+ of service debt for the next decade or so? Did the A’s go back on any commitments they have to the city? Are the A’s putting Oakland vs. another city as a ploy for better negotiations? If you can’t recognize that the Raiders are even worse then ol’ Lew, be prepared to get heartbroken (again)….

Oakland in all likelihood is going to have to make an offer that includes a sizable portion of taxpayer cash to pay for construction of a new Raiders stadium. Anybody want to place any odds on that happening? I suppose it might, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

@Anon – I’m not going to defend the Raiders beyond the fact that they have not yet declared Oakland dead to them and eliminated it as an option. If the A’s leave, they will bear a large amount of the responsibility (along with a long list of Oakland political leaders). I fully expect that they will end up looking (and going) elsewhere for a stadium, but we’re not there yet.

@ Tim – I suspect I know the answer to this, but will ask anyways: If the A’s were the last team to announce their intentions to move (after the W’s and Raiders), would you still perceive ol’ Lew as some villainous person? Timing, it seems, is everything…

Curious – No one from Raider Nation asking if they’ll remove the tarps if they sellout? Okay, that was a low blow…. :X

I find it hard to blame them for trying to make the best use of what they have. You can’t say that the economics of sell outs are the same in the NFL and MLB when baseball doesn’t have the blackout rules. You want to talk about cheap options, forget used video boards, this is the ultimate kicking the can down the road. I think we have reached the point this isn’t even a black eye for the organization.

As Tim mentioned, Oakland doesn’t have the $$$ to spend on a roof…..yet they don’t really have the kind of money needed to put up the walls or the floor that would even support the roof in the first place. Every stadium plan that would keep the Raiders (or any of their other teams) will start with, ‘Oakland will provide $XXX,000,000 for their portion of the stadium project cost’. Yet if actions speak louder than words, Oakland is currently saying ‘our past actions of kicking in public $$$ (in some form) is something we no longer are interested in doing’ (am I reading their actions wrong??).
Bottom line to keep the Raiders, either (a)the public approves funds (maybe the Pols put together a plan that gets the backing of all the important people/groups – the unions, all of the key Pols, the big businesses of Oakland…and sell it well to the voters or (b) they come up with a plan to kick in the money by other means (sell visas, land agreement, Sacramento help, backdoor funding, whatever). Outside of that, one would have to have concrete blinders on to believe the Raiders will build their own stadium on their own dime in Oakland.

It’s unfortunate for those who love pro sports in Oakland but the writing on the wall is clear (and has been for a while). And short of a Pol like Kevin Johnson who will come in and champion the cause in a strong and meaningful way (not political speak nonsense), the outlook for any team in Oakland is grim. That is just cold, hard, economic reality…

@Anon – The situations with each team are different. In the end, I’m an A’s fan, not a Warriors or Raiders fan, so I don’t really care what they do. I would prefer they stay, but if the city needs to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get them to stay, then I’m ok letting them leave. The same ultimately is true of the A’s I guess. I still don’t have to like Wolff though

I dont think lew is such a bad guy.. just wants a newballpark… and maybe even if some other owner was pro Oakland.. he would be disrespected by how much city of Oakland leaders wouldnt even give a dollar to a new ballpark.. so it is what it is..

I do have a strong theory, that the city of Oakland is banking on all the teams leaving.. and i think the reason why is they might have a developer in the dark… that wants to put either cheap housing or expensive apartments in that area… city of Oakland can cut their loses with mount davis tear it down, and get all that real estate money.. typical Oakland copying S.F… but S.F is doing the same thing with dhe soon to be demolished candlestick… am i on to something ML???

@ StuckInBoston – “You can’t say that the economics of sell outs are the same in the NFL and MLB when baseball doesn’t have the blackout rules.” I find this statement strange, because I haven’t been able to see a non-cable broadcast of an A’s game since I don’t know when. You are primarily restricted to premium cable or in person. For the NFL, it’s easy to catch your local team anytime. So in essence, MLB is blacked out ALL the time, unless you pay.

@ Tim – “I would prefer they stay, but if the city needs to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get them to stay, then I’m ok letting them leave.” Does this mean that you’re OK with the A’s leaving when the city balks back that they can’t help subsidize a new stadium in Oakland (a la the Raiders)?

@Anon – I’m hopeful (probably against all hope) the city can help make something work that works for team and city, and a $300 million direct subsidy does not work for the city.

@Berry – Even if your theory were true, what’s so evil about housing? And you can’t have “expensive” apartments in an area no one wants to live. If all the teams leave, of course they should bulldoze the Coliseum and sell the land off to the highest bidder. What other use is there for that stadium/land?

@Tim, I’d argue that it would absolutely be in Oakland’s best interest to get rid of their tenants and build housing/commercial property in that area. Sort of a mixed use area, possibly with a (very) scaled down convention center. There’s absolutely nothing evil or sinister about that if they wanted to go that route. But if they genuinely poised to do that, they shouldn’t waste the teams that are there’s time playing “build a stadium there” games. Particularly when they’re not going to be able to (and they shouldn’t) invest any city money to that cause.

@Tim – Just to clarify, you are hopeful that the city can make some arrangement with the A’s for them to stay without utilizing city funds, but would be okay with them leaving if a public subsidy was required. Is this correct?

I would envision a city contribution of land, infrastructure improvements and the like, in lieu of a direct cash money contribution to stadium construction costs. I don’t anticipate that working out though

@ Tim – fair enough, and thanks for sharing your opinion. I understand why you would be pessimistic given past history (Marlins stadium / Mt. Davis), and can see your frustrations with LW, given that he has/or had made similar plans without public cash contribution a la Fremont and now SJ and which is essentially dissing Oakland.

@Anon – That is exactly what I mean. Clearly there is a benefit for the the Raiders to resort to tarps if it means an increased probability of local broadcast. However, as you mention, the A’s are “blacked out” of network broadcast no matter how they dress up, or down, the Coliseum. And don’t get me started on how much more pathetic the programming is on CSNCA.

Regarding development on the Coliseum site, we are talking about the real estate wasteland sandwiched between Amtrack/Bart and 880 that can barely support a flea market, right?

I can see it now… It would be a bunch of condos that swirl in a maze throught the 750 acre lot…with streets named ” Raider Circle, A’s Way”, Warriors Court”…..and so on and so on… It would be real cute to sell LOL.

I would be all for housing there but I doubt there’s any private developer that could make it pencil out financially (for now at least). Who knows what the city’s finances will look like by the time the land is available for redevelopment though (5+ years from now)